4.6 Article

Nectar traits differ between pollination syndromes in Balsaminaceae

期刊

ANNALS OF BOTANY
卷 124, 期 2, 页码 269-279

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcz072

关键词

Adaptation; amino acids; Balsaminaceae; Impatiens; nectar; sugar

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aims The attractiveness of nectar rewards depends both on the quantity of nectar produced and on its chemical composition. It is known that nectar quantity and chemical composition can differ in plant species depending on the main pollinator associated with the species. The main aims of this study were to test formally whether nectar traits are adapted to pollination syndromes in the speciose Balsaminaceae and, if so, whether a combination of nectar traits mirrors pollination syndromes. Methods Comparative methods based on Ornstein-Uhlenbeck models were used to test whether nectar volume, nectar sucrose proportion, sugar and amino acid concentration and amino acid composition had evolved as a function of pollination syndromes in 57 species of Balsaminaceae. Cluster analysis and ordination were performed to derive clusters of species resembling each other in nectar composition. Key Results Evolutionary models for nectar volume and nectar sucrose proportion performed best when including information on pollination syndrome, while including such information improve model fit neither for sugar and amino acid concentration nor for amino acid composition. A significant relationship emerged between pollination syndrome and the combined nectar traits. Conclusions Our results show that nectar volume and nectar sucrose proportion evolve rapidly towards optimal values associated with different pollination syndromes. The detection of a signal indicating that nectar traits in combination are to a certain extent able to predict pollination syndromes in Balsaminaceae suggests that a holistic approach including the whole set of nectar traits helps us to better understand evolution of nectar composition in response to pollinators.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据